Author Topic: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)  (Read 11497 times)

grodriguez

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 5
5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« on: November 21, 2016, 04:17:18 AM »
Been trying to find relevant information for this. I'm a BMPCC user who loves the image and dynamic range coming from the sensor. My only issue comes from low light performance which is notoriously awful. That's got me looking towards something like a 5D mk iii with Magic Lantern that, on top of low light capability, has less noise at higher ISOs than my BMPCC (which falls apart when you push 2 stops past 800ASA) and as a small bonus: the mic preamps sound better than the BMPCC's.

I just had a few questions for anyone with experience using the 5D:

Is dual ISO reliable enough to compensate for the 5D's default dynamic range deficit (13 stops on BMPCC vs 11 stops, ~15.6 w/ dual ISO)?
How do you feel about the sensor noise in 1:1 crop mode while recording RAW?
Can you record audio while using dual ISO or crop mode?
How do you feel about the noise in shadows when underexposed/the highlight roll offs while clipping?


I've fallen in love with RAW, and my only gripe is the fact it doesn't have the full dynamic range of celluloid yet. Anyone who can spare shed on light on this, I'd really appreciate it!  :)

allemyr

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2016, 09:46:57 PM »
Hi,

Good questions! I think the 5D3 is a great camera with raw, i guess that the dynamic range is closer to 12 stops then 11 stops on 5D3 but I can be wrong.

I've seen some cool videos with dual ISO and 5D3, wouldn't use dual ISO all the time though so i guess most of the clips will have 11-12 stops dynamic range.

Would be nice to compare the two cameras. Often hard to compare cameras if you don't own them both, but I use my 5D3 at ISO 6400 with a +-0 exposure image with a lot of color noise reduction with quite good result. I'am also heavily happy with a camera that shoots RAW video and don't want anything else then raw but the 5D3 could be a lot better in low light compared to A7s cameras.


hyalinejim

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2016, 10:09:09 PM »
The RAW histogram on 5D3 shows you how many stops on the LHS are noisy and it's a good idea to stay out of that area. At 6400 ISO, you'd better get all your important info in the top two thirds of the histogram, giving about 5.5 stops before things begin to get very noisy. In 3x crop mode noise gets increasingly worse in the shadows at the same ISO.

dfort

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3751
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2016, 08:17:40 AM »
Is dual ISO reliable enough to compensate for the 5D's default dynamic range deficit (13 stops on BMPCC vs 11 stops, ~15.6 w/ dual ISO)?

Dual ISO is great for shooting stills at the full resolution of the sensor. Using it with 1920x1080 video -- not so much. You're sacrificing vertical resolution for increased dynamic range. I'd recommend reading this technical paper on dual iso:

http://acoutts.com/a1ex/dual_iso.pdf
5D3.* 7D.206 700D.115 EOSM.203 EOSM2.103 M50.102

janvkem

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2016, 12:37:35 AM »
I am currently reading up on ML on 5DMKIII as I'm thinking about upgrading my 7D especially for the improved video and low light options of the 5DMKIII and found this post interesting to read. The remark given by dfort is not really clear to me.

Dual ISO is great for shooting stills at the full resolution of the sensor. Using it with 1920x1080 video -- not so much. You're sacrificing vertical resolution for increased dynamic range. I'd recommend reading this technical paper on dual iso:

http://acoutts.com/a1ex/dual_iso.pdf


dfort, could you elaborate on your statement? I don't see anywhere mentioned in the article that there is a difference between stills and video in the way of taking data from sensor. Isn't it just that a smaller area of the sensor is sampled in video mode and that the relative loss in resolution is the same for video and stills? What I understood from the pdf is that the gain in dynamic range is independent of the sampling resolution. Only possible impact i see is that sharpness might go down due to the interpolation that is applied.


andy kh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2016, 03:20:15 AM »
I own a bmpcc. I shoot a short film last year. I choose my 650D over my bmpcc to shoot the film. After few test i never touch my bmpcc again. It has 2.88X crop factor. No way to shoot wide angle since i dont own a speed booster and terrible low light performance. My 70D performs much better in low light. regret so much buying a bmpcc so think twice if anyone consider buying a bmpcc
5D Mark III - 70D

dfort

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3751
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2016, 04:15:13 AM »
dfort, could you elaborate on your statement?

Sure--check the first page of that document I pointed out.

Quote
Would you trade half of vertical resolution for 3 stops of extra dynamic range?

Many people believe that dual_iso is something that should be on all the time and some people that only shoot stills do in fact use it almost all the time. It does seem to work miracles but there is a loss in resolution. When you are shooting video your vertical resolution is less than 1/3 of the resolution for stills so the loss is more noticeable. Here's a sample that was shot a few years ago by MA Visuals:


I've seen dual iso video samples that show extreme aliasing but of course I can't find them now.

regret so much buying a bmpcc so think twice if anyone consider buying a bmpcc

Wow, I was considering a BMPCC a while back but heard horror stories about noise, low light performance, battery life, issues with a Super 16mm sized sensor, etc.
5D3.* 7D.206 700D.115 EOSM.203 EOSM2.103 M50.102

teatotalTED

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2016, 07:37:35 AM »
X2.88 multiplier for equivilent horizontal field of view and aperture is compared to full frame digital or movies shot VistaVision 8perf.

It's approx X1.9 multiplier for equivilent hfov for 35mm 4perf film, Arri Alexa, Panavisions. So all those successful movies over the years shot on 4perf Academy or popular TV and films shot on the Alexa its a smaller incomburance to achieve equivilent hfov on bmpcc.

There's many successful films shot 16mm ie:(X1 multiplier) recently Black Swan, Moonrise Kingdom, parts of Hurt Locker.

It's easy to get caught up in equivilent to full frame due to dslrs and photographers moving to video but its a misnomer, focal length is the same regardless, fields of view change, motion picture 35mm unless shot 8perf isn't equivilent to full frame, its more in the region of APSC.

And movies shot Super35 approx X2

janvkem

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2016, 02:46:47 PM »
Sure--check the first page of that document I pointed out.

Quote
Would you trade half of vertical resolution for 3 stops of extra dynamic range?

Many people believe that dual_iso is something that should be on all the time and some people that only shoot stills do in fact use it almost all the time. It does seem to work miracles but there is a loss in resolution. When you are shooting video your vertical resolution is less than 1/3 of the resolution for stills so the loss is more noticeable. Here's a sample that was shot a few years ago by MA Visuals:

I've seen dual iso video samples that show extreme aliasing but of course I can't find them now.

So the resolution loss percentage wise is equal in still and video, but the effective loss in sharpness is greater in video as you have lower resolution. If I understood correctly the loss in resolution is only apparent in highlights/shadows. If i look at the video you posted i mainly see losses in sharpness in the dark areas. Mid tones should hardly loose resolution is that correct?

andy kh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2016, 05:56:18 PM »
@teatotal do you own a bmpcc already or any other micro four thirds camera if not please dont talk nonsense. Some good movies are shot with iphone and it doesnt mean iphones are good cameras
5D Mark III - 70D

dfort

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3751
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2016, 06:05:41 PM »
There's many successful films shot 16mm ie:(X1 multiplier) recently Black Swan, Moonrise Kingdom, parts of Hurt Locker.

And last year's best cinematography nominated "Carol" and this year's "Jackie." Film, including 16mm has been having a resurgence these past few years.

It's easy to get caught up in equivilent to full frame due to dslrs and photographers moving to video but its a misnomer, focal length is the same regardless, fields of view change, motion picture 35mm unless shot 8perf isn't equivilent to full frame, its more in the region of APSC.

True and the latest trend is for larger sensors. The Alexa 65 has a 54.12mm x 25.58mm active imaging area which is larger than the "full size" 36mm × 24mm still frame cameras.

Back on topic:

I've fallen in love with RAW, and my only gripe is the fact it doesn't have the full dynamic range of celluloid yet. Anyone who can spare shed on light on this, I'd really appreciate it!  :)

These days all film is scanned so much of the dynamic range is lost in the process. Even when we worked on film prints the original negative was printed to a low contrast positive then to an internegative before striking release prints in order to save the original negative from excessive wear. That's why restoration projects try to scan from the original negative if possible and look even better than when the film was originally released.

Digital has advanced to a point where it has even more dynamic range than film scans. Here's an interesting article on still photography but the same applies to motion pictures:

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/

...Some good movies are shot with iphone and it doesnt mean iphones are good cameras

Many bad movies were shot on Panavision cameras.
5D3.* 7D.206 700D.115 EOSM.203 EOSM2.103 M50.102

Danne

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7293
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2016, 06:39:46 PM »
Quote
Many bad movies were shot on Panavision cameras
:-*

Danne

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7293
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2016, 07:11:29 PM »
Swedish director and oscar winning Malick Benedjoul(no longer here) filmed parts of Searching for sugar man on an iphone.
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone

robertgl

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2016, 07:27:56 AM »
Perhaps anything can look like anything in post these days, but the BMPCC has always looked videoish to me in demo vids, while the canon videos look more 'natural' and cinematic.
I think one key takeaway for me is that resolution is not such a big deal when you get into the near-HD resolutions and above. THe most important thing is to get good images, and to avoid 'unnatural' sensor noise like banding and blocking

reddeercity

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2016, 08:02:37 AM »
Late fall (2015) & early spring (2016)  I edited & graded a movie shot on a bmcc which I thing is about the same as bmpcc
just a little larger sensor 2.4k to 1080p . I found it to be very noisey ,  lots of problems in the shadows I had to run about half the footage
(cdng's) thought A.E. to cleanup the noise (1.5TB of 3.5 TB project) I was not happy . It was to point I had to cut a few scene's because footage was so
bad and could not be re-shot . There again DP made many mistakes , I know for a fact that the 5d3 or even 5d2 with ml raw would have saved thou's shadows and give a
cleaner around image for grading . I think those bmcc & bmpcc need a lot of light & ETTR to the point of clipping to make them work well.
Hands down the 5D3 all the way , but if someone gives me a bmcc or bmpcc to use I wouldn't complain to much  :P 

teatotalTED

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2016, 09:25:32 AM »
andy ah, my post was about focal length and aperture multipliers when you mentioned X2.88 crop factor, which part of my post was nonsense? I'd like to know so that i don't make the same mistake again, thank you. I don't think I made any reference to the performance of the bmpcc or other bm camera or whether it's better or worse than the 5D3. I was making comparisons between achievable fields of view between different camera sensors and focal length, that is all.

We're those cinematographers working with 35mm 4 perf Academy (APS-C) saying hell I can't live with 1.6x multiplier (comparison between 4perf and full frame digital/VistaVision) it's killing me.

justinbacle

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • DP
Re: 5D Mark III ML RAW vs BMPCC (Dynamic Range, noise, usability)
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2017, 03:43:24 PM »
I own a bmpcc. I shoot a short film last year. I choose my 650D over my bmpcc to shoot the film. After few test i never touch my bmpcc again. It has 2.88X crop factor. No way to shoot wide angle since i dont own a speed booster and terrible low light performance. My 70D performs much better in low light. regret so much buying a bmpcc so think twice if anyone consider buying a bmpcc
Because you don't have a wide angle lens doen't mean that the BMPCC cannot shoot wide. You have several options :
- Getting the faboulous 7-14mm f/4 Panasonic (gives you a 21mm equivalent FoV, pretty wide IMO) This lens is expensive though
- Lens Turbo + any Wide angle lens in a (D)SLR mount (any 17-55 / 18-55 with a speedbooster will give you 38mm FoV, wider with the SpeedBooster XL of course)
- Getting a wide angle C mount 16mm lens (popular options include the 10mm zeiss (Expensive)  and the 12.5mm computar (Cheap)) (The MiR-11 is also great and cheap, but has a weird Krasnogorsk mount (adapter costs around $70))

BTW, I would totally buy your BMPCC if you have a reasonable price.